God at Princeton

Today the Supreme Court will hear arguments regarding the constitutionality of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. A lower court has ruled that the phrase violates the separation of Church and State. As reported in The New York Times, the plaintiff argues, "to recite the pledge with 'under God' is to take 'one side in the quintessential religious question "Does God exist?"' a statement of 'sectarian religious dogma' that the government should not sponsor in a public school setting."

Opinion is sharply divided on the issue, but perhaps not along the lines you might think. According to The Times, the Bush Administration argues that the phrase is simply a reference to "'the nation's religious history" and the "undeniable historical fact that the nation was founded by individuals who believed in God." The Christian Legal Society gives more weight to the words, seeing them "as a reminder that 'government is not the highest authority in human affairs' because 'inalienable rights come from God.'"

In contrast, a group of clergy has criticized the Pledge for forcing children to invoke a belief they do not necessarily hold. As they see it, "every day, government asks millions of schoolchildren to take the name of the Lord in vain."

With his customary objectivity, Professor Christopher Eisgruber '83, has suggested a compromise solution that does not force the Court to come down on either side of the issue. Eisgruber, who is director of the Program in Law and Public Affairs and provost-elect, suggests that the Court require schools to offer a secular alternative to the current Pledge that either excises the words "under God" or substitutes them with another suitable phrase such as "of equals."

(Note how "of equals" fits melodically into the spot usually filled by "under God," and provides a graceful transition to "with liberty and justice for all." It seems Professor Eisgruber is a lawyer and a poet.)

That Professor Eisgruber's compromise seems to satisfy everyone make it compelling in the present case, but it is probably not applicable to other examples of so-called "ceremonial deism." For example, having two sets of money, one that trusts in God and another that does not, would be unworkable. While certainly preferable to forcing people to act contrary to their beliefs, such divisions may exacerbate tensions between religious and nonreligious people by obligating individuals to identify as such. Classrooms may divide into "under God-ers" and "of equals-ers." Where either group is a minority, discrimination may result.

Of course, such divisions are the natural products of a diverse society. Classrooms aimed a producing competent citizens should teach children to understand and respect these differences.

Judging from recent contributions to this page, this is one area where Princeton could be doing a better job. Professor Fleming has been troubled by the widespread anti-Christian bias he perceives; columnist Julie Park has criticized the 'Prince' for not reporting on more religious activities.

As a private institution, Princeton is not required to refrain from religious activities (except where it receives public funding), but the University seems to believe its educational mission is best suited by a secular stance.

Still, invocations of religion abound. While we hear a lot about being in the Nation's service and the service of all nations, the University's official motto remains "Dei sub numine viget," which is officially translated as "under God's power she flourishes." Perhaps this two-motto approach is where Professor Eisgruber found inspiration for his proposal. Are you a flourisher or a service-er?

What would happen if a nonreligious student wished to receive a diploma that did not include the words "Dei sub numine viget?" Even more problematically, the University seal explicitly references the Old and New Testaments, crossing the line from ecumenical "deism" to "sectarian religious dogma." What would be the University's response to a Muslim student who did not wish the seal to appear on his or her diploma? Applying Professor Eisgruber's standard, offering secular alternatives would be — if not legally obligatory — the right thing to do.

Religion aside, there are good reasons to prefer the unofficial motto to the official one. It is more of a humanitarian mission statement than a smug affirmation of being divinely chosen. It is in a language living people understand.

Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

The motto is not a hot-button issue like the Pledge. But, when thought of in the context of charges of anti-Christian bias, perhaps it shows how finding clever ways to address the cosmetic issues raised by religious-secular tensions does not resolve the fundamental schism underneath. True freedom of conscience cannot be handed down by a court, no matter how supreme. Rather, respect and tolerance for those who believe in God and those who do not must be built from the ground up. Tom Hale is a Wilson School major from Saunderstown, R.I. He can be reached at thale@princeton.edu.